Dismissed¶44

Smt. Kalavathi @ Shashikala v. Sri. Pandappa @ Pandurangappa

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026WP/8928/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 8928 of 2023 (GM-CPC); decided 28 April 2026 by Justice K. V. Aravind (oral order). Keywords: compromise decree; Lok Adalath compromise petition; O.S. No.109/2016, Hiriyur, Chitradurga; General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder representing petitioner; husband signing compromise petition; inability to read Kannada; misrepresentation; PW.1 evidence recorded in Kannada; inference of Kannada literacy; Article 227 writ petition; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The sole ground of challenge — that the petitioner's GPA holder could not read Kannada and signed the compromise petition without understanding its contents, which are incorrect and prejudicial to the petitioner — cannot be accepted. ¶37

Smt. Kalavathi @ Shashikala Vs Sri. Pandappa @… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23912 WP No. 8928 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 8928 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KALAVATHI @ SHASHIKALA, W/O SRI SHAKTIVEL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAVINDRA M. R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. PANDAPPA @ PANDURANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

¶15

SMT. LALITHAMMA, W/O PANDAPPA @ PANDURANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,

¶16

BOTH 1 & 2 ARE R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI R. CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:23912 WP No. 8928 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED ON COMPROMISE PETITION BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH DATED 19.09.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.109/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-B ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri M.R. Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Chandranna, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶27

The petitioner, in the present petition, is challenging the order dated 19.09.2020 passed in O.S. No.109/2016 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, whereby a compromise decree came to be recorded. It is stated that the compromise was entered into on behalf of the petitioner by her husband in his capacity as her General Power of Attorney holder (for short “GPA holder”).

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:23912 WP No. 8928 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Sri M.R. Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the compromise petition was written in Kannada and that the husband of the petitioner, who represented her in the compromise proceedings, does not know Kannada. It is submitted that, in the absence of understanding the contents of the compromise petition, the compromise was entered into under misrepresentation. Hence, he submits that the compromise is liable to be set aside.

¶32

Per contra , Sri R. Chandranna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the GPA holder of the petitioner entered into the compromise after understanding the contents of the compromise petition. It is further submitted that the GPA holder of the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 in the said suit before the Trial Court, and his evidence was recorded in Kannada. The evidence of PW.1 in O.S. No. 109/2016 has been made available to this Court.

¶33

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the Trial Court recorded the compromise in the presence of both the parties. The petitioner was represented by her GPA holder, who is none

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23912 WP No. 8928 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

other than her husband. Though the compromise petition forms part and parcel of the compromise decree, the same has not been placed before this Court.

¶37

5.1 The sole ground urged in challenge to the compromise decree is that the GPA holder of the petitioner could not read Kannada and that he signed the compromise petition without understanding its contents, and that such contents are incorrect and prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. The said contention cannot be accepted.

¶38

The GPA holder of the petitioner entered the witness box in the very same suit in O.S. No. 109/2016 and examined himself as PW.1. The Trial Court recorded his evidence in Kannada. The evidence so recorded does not indicate that PW.1 was unable to read or understand Kannada. In the absence of any such finding being recorded, the only inference that can be drawn is that the GPA holder of the petitioner knows Kannada.

¶39

Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the GPA holder having examined himself as PW.1 and his evidence having been

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:23912 WP No. 8928 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

recorded in Kannada. The grounds urged in the petition are not substantiated.

¶44